For Doc, rates of change of acceleration

AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the distinction between change in acceleration and the rate of change of acceleration, known as jerk. Change in acceleration can be expressed in the same units as acceleration, such as "g," while the rate of change of acceleration has units of m/s³. Participants discuss the conversion of acceleration measured in "g" to m/s/s/s for specific calculations, emphasizing the need to multiply by appropriate factors, such as 9.8, to achieve the correct units. The conversation also touches on the need for proper formatting in posts, specifically regarding the use of symbols. Understanding these unit conversions is crucial for accurately measuring and expressing rates of change in acceleration.
Micky
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Sometime ago you very kindly advised me regarding units for rates of change of acceleration.

I still don't fully understand how "a" and "Δa" can have the same units, "g". If acceleration is measured in terms of "g", shouldn't the rate of change of acceleration be measured in terms of g/s?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are correct.

rate of change of acceleration, also called jerk, has units

\frac m {s^3}
 
Originally posted by Micky
Sometime ago you very kindly advised me regarding units for rates of change of acceleration.
As Integral states, the rate of change of acceleration is called "jerk".
I still don't fully understand how "a" and "Δa" can have the same units, "g". If acceleration is measured in terms of "g", shouldn't the rate of change of acceleration be measured in terms of g/s?
You are confusing change with rate of change. The units of a change in any quantity will be the same units as the quantity.

Example: Your weight goes from 165 lbs to 170 lbs. The change is 5 lbs, same units as your weight.

If the change took place over 1 month, the (average) rate of change of your weight would be: 5 lbs/month. Different quantity, different units.

Similary, the CHANGE of acceleration will have units of m/s2 (you can measure in terms of "g" if you want), but the RATE of change of acceleration would be in units of m/s3 (you can use g/sec, if you dare).

Bottom line: Change is Δa; rate of change is Δa/Δt.
 
Thanks Integral, can jerk also be expressed as g/s?
 
I've had another look at the original thread here

I think I see now how Doc's answer is correct for my method of measuring rates of change of acceleration. I'm comparing two consecutive measurements of acceleration (units = "g"), therefore the answer = change in acceleration over the time period and must be in "g" .. I think. This is fine for the current project which is comparing rates of change of accel.

However, at some stage I will need to express the rate of change of acceleration in units of m/s/s/s. So if the measurement period is, say, 0.01s then I need to multiply the change in acceleration over this period by 100.

I suspect that the calculation should be {measured accel value in units of g}*9.8*100 which should then give me the rate of change of acceleration measured in m/s/s/s ??

Is there a thread with info about inserting symbols into posts?
 
Originally posted by Micky
I've had another look at the original thread here

I think I see now how Doc's answer is correct for my method of measuring rates of change of acceleration. I'm comparing two consecutive measurements of acceleration (units = "g"), therefore the answer = change in acceleration over the time period and must be in "g" .. I think. This is fine for the current project which is comparing rates of change of accel.

However, at some stage I will need to express the rate of change of acceleration in units of m/s/s/s. So if the measurement period is, say, 0.01s then I need to multiply the change in acceleration over this period by 100.

I suspect that the calculation should be {measured accel value in units of g}*9.8*100 which should then give me the rate of change of acceleration measured in m/s/s/s ??

Is there a thread with info about inserting symbols into posts?
the LaTeX thread.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top